Stupid for not showing her boobs or not stupid

minidazzler · 07-09-2011 02:09PM

adocholiday wrote: »

She's posing in underwear in her assets profile. It's hardly a huge step up to showing her breasts. Silly move imo. Showing boobs is nothing anymore. Go onto any beach in a warm country there's boobs everywhere.

She lost a big opportunity there for being too prudish

I can't find her on it.

FetchTheGin · 07-09-2011 02:10PM

If she doesn't want to do it she doesn't have to. It could be a great opportunity missed though, the show is quite big.

If she has any real acting talent she will go far.

Morlar · 07-09-2011 02:12PM

I can see no valid reason whatsoever why the programme makers should not have been more honest about what was required.

The only possibility is they planned in advance to pressure her into a snap decision as they knew she would otherwise refuse.

Fair play to her.

phill106 · 07-09-2011 02:14PM

Wonder does she go topless on the beach?

Richard Hillman · 07-09-2011 02:14PM

Its a made up story to try boost her profile after not getting the role. Don't give her or the Herag oxygen

MungBean · 07-09-2011 02:16PM

I find it incredibly hard to believe that HBO would not tell an actress that her role involved nudity before hiring her. Especially in a series like Game of Thrones.

There is any amount of actresses who would have jumped at the part. You dont compromise the shooting of a hugely successful series by trying to trick an unknown actress into doing a sex scene.

Yer one is full of shít.

minidazzler · 07-09-2011 02:19PM

Morlar wrote: »

I can see no valid reason whatsoever why the programme makers should not have been more honest about what was required.

The only possibility is they planned in advance to pressure her into a snap decision as they knew she would otherwise refuse.

Fair play to her.

Yes, that is the only possibility that exists. No way it could have been a miscommunication or Ms Nolan's lack of "research" being that she didn't read what she was suppposed to do and simply signed a contract. I am willing to bet rather than be an "actress" she was gonna be an extra in the background. They didn't care who was in the scene as long as they were attractive and would show their boobs.

bnt · 07-09-2011 02:22PM

chin_grin wrote: »

Three year jump in 08 and five movies since? Yeah that deserves a "where is she". :P

So she has young kids, and is taking on a lighter workload after winning an Oscar. It's hardly a strange thing to do. Sandra Bullock is doing exactly the same - an actress who got her top off very early in her career, which only helped her, and then she's never felt the need to do it again.

If I look at the Academy Award Best Actress nominees this century, (2000-2010), I can see only a few who have never gotten topless on film at some point - that I know of. All the "serious" English actresses such as Emma Thompson, Judi Dench and Helen Mirren have done it. Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Diane Keaton, Annette Bening, you name it. I think it's fair to say that dropping the top at some point is not a career-killer - if you are a good actress.

billymitchell · 07-09-2011 02:22PM

This thread need more pictures of the girl in question
I would

AnonoBoy · 07-09-2011 02:22PM

Morlar wrote: »

I can see no valid reason whatsoever why the programme makers should not have been more honest about what was required.

The only possibility is they planned in advance to pressure her into a snap decision as they knew she would otherwise refuse.

Fair play to her.

I honestly doubt they gave it that much thought.

emul8ter25 · 07-09-2011 02:24PM

I honestly dont see what the big deal is about showing boob. In a lot of countries its completely normal and you wouldnt blink twice.

Snakeblood · 07-09-2011 02:25PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I honestly doubt they gave it that much thought.

If you did a casting for 'girl who will get them out for amazing pay and cameo in HBO show', you'd be inundated with applicants, some of them suitable. It's totally unlikely they had an evil plan to exploit this poor girl.

Morlar · 07-09-2011 02:33PM

emul8ter25 wrote: »

I honestly dont see what the big deal is about showing boob. In a lot of countries its completely normal and you wouldnt blink twice.

You are talking as if models and actresses go topless at the drop of the hat.

They don't. Many actresses and models work in strict categories, stepping into another category means they will get paid more but never return to the previous category. It IS a big deal for a model or actress to decide to go topless. It does not seem realistic to me that a production company could simply have 'forgot to mention' this, knowing full well as they do that it IS a big deal.

It's also unrealistic that she would not read the part in her contract where it clearly states the requirement. Either ;

A)
she is being dishonest and deliberately badmouthing a high profile company in order to gain personal publicity, in which case they could blow her out of the water with a single press release containing the wording of the contract. She'd never work again and their reputation is restored. They could also sue for damages. So if this is a deception on her part it's potentially drastically dangerous. There is a huge risk for minimal gain.

She is telling the truth. IF she is telling the truth then the point above (imo) stands

I can see no valid reason whatsoever why the programme makers should not have been more honest about what was required.

The only possibility is they planned in advance to pressure her into a snap decision as they knew she would otherwise refuse.

I am not really sure why people are so eager to side with an american production company over the word of an Irish model.

Marty McFly · 07-09-2011 02:36PM

Morlar wrote: »

I am not really sure why people are so eager to side with an american production company over the word of an Irish model.

What a stupid thing to say, are you really trying to make this an American vs Irish thing? :rolleyes:

prinz · 07-09-2011 02:37PM

Morlar wrote: »

I am not really sure why people are so eager to side with an american production company over the word of an Irish model.

Boobs hehehehehehe boobs hehehehehhhhe. Thats why.

AnonoBoy · 07-09-2011 02:37PM

Morlar wrote: »

I can see no valid reason whatsoever why the programme makers should not have been more honest about what was required.

The only possibility is they planned in advance to pressure her into a snap decision as they knew she would otherwise refuse.

That's not 'the only possibility'.

It's quite possible that the scene changed between her being cast and the filming or the producers decided - 'you know what, we need topless girls in this scene.' and quite simply nobody informed her because they didn't think of it as she was more than likely a minor (quite possibly) non-speaking role.

I find that quite likely and refute your 'only possibility' as being only something that might have happened but probably didn't.

conorhal · 07-09-2011 02:38PM

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

I can't understand how she'd be so against a topless scene, now I can understand if it was something like the never ending lesbian scene.............................Jesus, that just never seemed to end:D

Those HBO producers do like a bit of gratuitous nudity for no real reason other then tit-illation. Game of Thrones ‘Ros the Expositionary Whore’ being a prime example.
“Got a bit of tedious exposition to deliver? Do you need to stop the action and have some faux shakesperian actor explain the plot to the thickos, but fear you might loose the attention of the audience? No problem! Just wheel in 'Ros the Expositionary Whore' and have him explain the plot to her ....as she fists some chick in the background! That should keep then nerds watching.”

Morlar · 07-09-2011 02:40PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

That's not 'the only possibility'.

It's quite possible that the scene changed between her being cast and the filming or the producers decided - 'you know what, we need topless girls in this scene.' and quite simply nobody informed her because they didn't think of it as she was more than likely a minor (quite possibly) non-speaking role.

I find that quite likely and refute your 'only possibility' as being only something that might have happened but probably didn't.

That possibility above also involves her telling the truth & them not being upfront with her. Though in your scenario there is a potentially more legitimate reason, providing you believe that there really was an unexpected boob shortage crisis they were unable to communicate in advance.

So . . . last minute 'boob emergency scene' change take 1. Action.

Logical Fallacy · 07-09-2011 02:47PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

Amazing is relative. It sounds better if she turns down amazing money than if she turned down 500 quid a day. Which is amazing money to some people, but possibly not for getting your tits out.

Indeed it is relative, but as she is the person who turned it down her take on it is the only thing that actually matters.

analucija · 07-09-2011 02:48PM

Morlar wrote: »

I can see no valid reason whatsoever why the programme makers should not have been more honest about what was required.

The only possibility is they planned in advance to pressure her into a snap decision as they knew she would otherwise refuse.

I am not really sure why people are so eager to side with an american production company over the word of an Irish model.

Because sometimes things change during filming. You really think they couldn't get somebody else for that role and would have to con some model into doing it.

I don't blame her, if she didn't feel comfortable doing it, she shouldn't do it. However I do think that posing in the middle of Grafton Street in a bikini is more demeaning and questionable than a still shot of a naked scene in a fairly gritty tv production. And that underwear photo somebody posted here is not doing her any favors either. That is a prime example of cheap worthless photo, sole purpose of which is gratification and not art.

PeterIanStaker · 07-09-2011 02:48PM

f**ing prude, she's probably gone off for a cold bath and a decade of the rosary :rolleyes:

Snakeblood · 07-09-2011 02:49PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Indeed it is relative, but as she is the person who turned it down her take on it is the only thing that actually matters.

Not, again, if she publicises it and makes it a matter for debate, sadly.

seamus · 07-09-2011 02:49PM

Hey Look!

Here's an interview she gave two weeks ago saying that she knew full well there would be nudity:

http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/lisa-stays-clothed-for-steamy-knights-in-tv-debut-2856195.html

When I got hired for the part I was told that I would be topless and I wasn't happy about that at all.

But instead when no-one on set would pander to her unreasonable demand to stay clothed she threw a strop and stormed back to the Herald for another interview.

Stupid, stupid girl. Nothing but a media whore clearly. Katie mk II?

AnonoBoy · 07-09-2011 02:50PM

Morlar wrote: »

That possibility above also involves her telling the truth & them not being upfront with her. Though in your scenario there is a potentially more legitimate reason, providing you believe that there really was an unexpected boob shortage crisis they were unable to communicate in advance.

So . . . last minute 'boob emergency scene' change take 1. Action.

I've already said that they should have told her in advance that the scene required nudity.

On big productions such as Game of Thrones there's a lot going on. An awful lot. Whether one small one-scene role by an unknown Irish model is nude or not is waaaay down the list of priorities.

Hank Scorpio · 07-09-2011 02:50PM

Third Nipple imo

PeterIanStaker · 07-09-2011 02:50PM

seamus wrote: »

Stupid, stupid girl. Nothing but a media whore clearly. Katie mk II?

Katie French you mean? Overdose a-comin'

Snakeblood · 07-09-2011 02:52PM

nuxxx wrote: »

Third Nipple imo

SCARAMANGA.

Morlar · 07-09-2011 02:53PM

seamus wrote: »

Hey Look!

Here's an interview she gave two weeks ago saying that she knew full well there would be nudity:

http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/lisa-stays-clothed-for-steamy-knights-in-tv-debut-2856195.html

But instead when no-one on set would pander to her unreasonable demand to stay clothed she threw a strop and stormed back to the Herald for another interview.

Stupid, stupid girl. Nothing but a media whore clearly. Katie mk II?

Let's not quote out of context shall we ?

By By Alexandra Ryan

Wednesday August 24 2011

DUBLIN model Lisa Nolan is set to get her acting debut on the medieval series 'Game Of Thrones' but says she won't go nude for the raunchy show.

The Assets model revealed to the Herald that the series producers found her picture online and asked her to star in the show, playing a new mistress of the king.

"They scouted me out online. They were looking for a girl with long dark hair. I will be playing the king's mistress on the side for a few days. I can't wait," she revealed.

Lisa (21) will be shooting her scenes for the show this week. And although the popular series is known for raunchy sex scenes, the Dublin model says she refused to strip down for her upcoming episodes.

"When I got hired for the part I was told that I would be topless and I wasn't happy about that at all.

"I would never do something like that I have to think of my family."

Despite agreeing to cover up, Lisa says her boyfriend is not too happy about her upcoming appearance.

"He is extremely worried as he knows it is quite a raunchy show, I'm not doing any sex scenes but he is still quite concerned," she said.

The Lucan native will now be rubbing shoulders with the likes of actor Sean Bean and 300 star Lena Headey.

Lisa revealed that she will be filming scenes on the official Game Of Thrones set on the coast of Belfast.

"I just had a fitting and I met all of the cast. We are shooting inside a castle."

hnews@herald.ie

Snakeblood · 07-09-2011 02:56PM

seamus wrote: »

Hey Look!

Here's an interview she gave two weeks ago saying that she knew full well there would be nudity:

http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/lisa-stays-clothed-for-steamy-knights-in-tv-debut-2856195.html

But instead when no-one on set would pander to her unreasonable demand to stay clothed she threw a strop and stormed back to the Herald for another interview.

Stupid, stupid girl. Nothing but a media whore clearly. Katie mk II?

Actually, that interview doesn't say whether it was agreed or not, just that she said to the Herald that she wouldn't do it. I wouldn't say it is conclusive.

prinz · 07-09-2011 02:56PM

seamus wrote: »

Hey Look!
Here's an interview she gave two weeks ago saying that she knew full well there would be nudity:

In fairness that's clear from the article on the OP. She said she'd go topless in so far as her nips would be covered or some such as she claims they agreed to.

Apparently they then went back on this. Nothing new.

Stupid for not showing her boobs or not stupid

Comments